AN AZURE lapin fur jacket or a caramel coloured fox-trim coat may sound ideal to fur lovers – but what about a dog fur vest? Ragtrader has been looking into allegations of illegal canine fur use within Australia’s fashion industry and has been trying to get the low-down on this contentious issue. Ahead of a meeting on the subject with the Government Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, Brendan O’Connor, director of the Humane Society International (HSI), Verna Simpson, said the ‘horrific’ killing of cats and dogs in Australia’s apparel industry is being overlooked. Simpson said the HSI’s investigations have uncovered several clothing retail outlets, including national stores, that are selling items containing fur from dogs.
“Despite bans on the importation of cat and dog fur pelts and products being implemented back in 2004, following our campaign seven years later it would appear that these items have once again infiltrated our borders and have ended up on Australia’s shores,” Simpson said. “We see retailers as the victims in this deception, as at no point do they think they are buying dog or cat fur. Most retailers are horrified when they are told they are selling dog fur.”
Simpson said that once one major store was alerted about one of its designers using dog fur, it immediately withdrew the product. The HSI estimates that two million dogs and cats are killed annually for their fur and 10-12 dogs and 24 cats are slaughtered to make one coat. This is more if puppies and kittens are used. The HSI carried out independent tests on various items from Australian stores, which it says proved that dog fur was used, but many retailers say their own commissioned tests found this was not the case.
The HSI said it alerted Customs and Border Protection to the results of its analysis of a number of fur vests, found by independent experts to illegally contain dog fur back in February. But Simpson said despite these results, and requests from the HSI for the Federal Minister to intervene, no action has been taken to enforce the Commonwealth legislation that prohibits the importation of pelts and products made from dog and cat fur.
“Incredibly, despite some of the most reputable forensic experts having analysed the fur vests as containing dog fur on separate occasions, Customs chose to accept the tests undertaken by the retailers as proof the vests were rabbit fur,” Simpson said. “The orders for this product next winter are tenfold what they were this year, so it is vital this is addressed now before the new shipments start to flow through.”
Simpson also said that many winter boots, which are labelled as raccoon fur, have tested positive for dog fur too. The import of cat or dog fur or products containing either was prohibited under the Customs Regulations 1956. A spokesman from Customs said in circumstances where there is doubt about a product’s authenticity or documents, the importer may be required to provide a sample for testing by an appropriate expert.
“Earlier this year the HSI made allegations to Customs and Border Protection that two Australian retailers were selling products containing dog fur,” a Customs spokesman said. “We investigated the allegations and requested that each importer suspected of importing the prohibited clothing present detailed import documents and copies of any tests or assessments of the garments. Independent scientific analysis of the garments did not confirm the presence of prohibited fur.”
Customs says it is now preparing a new policy document outlining expectations for fur test reports and test authorities. Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia, Jo-Ann Kellock, said the importers are responsible for the products they bring into Australia and are best placed to know the contents of their goods. She said ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law and her advice to retailers and consumers is to ‘play it safe and buy Australian’.
“Customs officers do not have the capacity, skills or ability to monitor and detect harmful substances or unpalatable components among the approximately one billion units per annum of imported product coming into Australia,” Kellock said. “There is no random testing or checking, except when bodies like the HSI bring it to everyone’s attention. Also, other third world countries don’t necessary hold the same values about their pets as Australians do.”
The HSI hit out at family-run business Wittners, a fashion and footwear enterprise which has more than 60 stores throughout the country, by claiming it stocked a dog fur vest earlier this year. Chief Executive Officer and product director of Wittners, Michael Wittner, said there was no truth in the claim and tests were done to prove this. He also said the HSI refused to release its tests to support the allegations, a claim the HSI disputes.
“We have openly shared our tests, which were undertaken by Professor James Robertson from the National Centre for Forensic Studies, with both the public and Sarah Groube from the Australian Customs Compliance Division,” Wittner said.
In response to the HSI’s allegations that dog fur was also being stocked in Myer, bosses of the department store say they were pleased they were quickly able to determine that the garment in question was sourced in accordance with the company’s sale of fur policy.
“Comprehensive testing by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has indicated the content of the garment was consistent with approved sources of fur product and contains no prohibited fur such as dog, as was suggested,” a spokesman from Myer said. “The testing confirmed the fur was rabbit, a product typically used in the garment industry and one that is widely accepted for such purposes.”
When fur is obtained as a by-product, Myer requires written verification regarding the source of the fur product, and confirmation that the fur is a by-product, prior to the merchandise being accepted for sale.